In providing services to customers, network service providers are constantly trying to provide faster, more robust services, and to provide more bandwidth to customers of their communications networks. ATM is currently deployed heavily for DSL services. Service providers who possess large ATM based network infrastructures are moving towards GigE (gigabit Ethernet)/IP based infrastructure because of the benefits provided by a GigE/IP based infrastructure including the delivery of enhanced features, more bandwidth, faster service, and more features to customers. Although a transition period involving shared integration could reduce costs of a migration from ATM to GigE/IP, because ATM and GigE/ATM infrastructure are largely incompatible, shared integration is not a trivial matter.
Referring to FIG. 1A, control by a known ATM NT (network termination) card 10 of an ATM DSLAM (digital subscriber line access multiplexer) employed in an ATM based infrastructure is discussed. The ATM NT 10 has a first ATM onboard controller (OBC) 12 which is coupled by an ATM bus 2, to a number of ATM line termination (LT) cards 22. The ATM NT 10 also has a second ATM OBC 14 which is coupled to the first ATM OBC 12. The ATM OBCs 12, 14 control the operations of the ATM NT 10 such as switching (not shown) and manage the control of the ATM LT cards 22. In a known ATM NT card 10, the single first ATM OBC 12 takes care of managing the ATM LT cards 22. Although the second ATM OBC 14 shares in the general operations of the ATM NT card 10, each of the two ATM OBCs 12, 14 performs its own specific functions. As such, complete control of management of the ATM LT cards 22 is given to only one ATM OBC, namely the first ATM OBC 12 of the ATM NT card 10.
The ATM NT 10 of an ATM DSLAM is designed to work with ATM network rules, work with ATM hardware, shelving and ATM LTs 22, is designed to work with existing ATM system interfaces, and forms part of an existing ATM network infrastructure. As such, the functionality of an ATM OBC 12 to manage and control ATM LT cards 22 or other peripherals based on ATM will be compatible to manage and control only ATM LT cards 22 and those other peripherals based on ATM.
Referring to FIG. 1B, control by a known GigE/IP NT card 15 of a GigE/IP DSLAM employed in a GigE/IP based infrastructure is discussed. The GigE/IP NT 15 has a first GigE/IP OBC 17 which is coupled by a GigE/IP star bus 4, to a number of GigE/IP LT cards 24. The GigE/IP NT 15 also has a second GigE/IP OBC 19 which is coupled to the first GigE/IP OBC 17. The GigE/IP OBCs 17, 19 control the operations of the GigE/IP NT 15 such as switching (not shown) and manage the control of the GigE/IP LT cards 24. In a known GigE/IP NT card 15, the single first GigE/IP OBC 17 takes care of managing the GigE/IP LT cards 24. Although the second GigE/IP OBC 19 shares in the general operations of the GigE/IP NT card 15, each of the GigE/IP OBCs 17, 19 performs its own specific functions. As such, complete control of management of the GigE/IP LT cards 24 is given to only one GigE/IP OBC, namely the first GigE/IP OBC 17 of the GigE/IP NT card 15.
The GigE/IP NT 15 of a GigE/IP DSLAM is designed to work with GigE/IP network rules, GigE/IP LTs 24, GigE/IP system interfaces, and forms part of a GigE/IP network infrastructure. As such the functionality of a GigE/IP OBC 17 to manage and control GigE/IP LT cards 24 or other peripherals based on GigE/IP will be compatible to manage and control only GigE/IP LT cards 24 and those other peripherals based on GigE/IP.
Other known systems employ multiple controllers which share control lines or control buses to peripherals. In such a situation the controllers communicate with each other to resolve any conflicts regarding shared controls. Such a solution to coordinate control, avoid contention, and ensure no peripheral goes unmanaged, is complex and costly to implement.
Service providers have an extensive installed base of ATM DSLAM systems. As these operators begin to evolve their access networks from ATM based infrastructure towards an infrastructure based on Ethernet packet aggregation, they begin to migrate from their existing installed base of ATM DSLAM systems to GigE/IP DSLAM systems.
Service providers would rather not have to resort to dropping new GigE/IP DSLAM systems into their networks as replacements of the ATM DSLAM systems due to the cost of the GigE/IP DSLAMs, the cost of empty slots in those GigE/IP DSLAMs during the transition, and the amount of new space required for the new GigE/IP DSLAMs. The service providers would prefer a solution that could provide shared integration of both ATM and GigE/IP system interfaces and help them continue to utilize the shelves and ATM line cards that they have already paid for to facilitate a gradual migration from an ATM network infrastructure to a GigE/IP network infrastructure.